Every individual has been granted by God with certain 'inalienable rights'; those rights being life, liberty and property. Every man has a right to act in his interest insofar as it does not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. So theft would be 'illegal' because it takes one man's property and gives it to another. Or, murder would be 'illegal' because it steals one man's right to live as God granted it to him. Finally, regulation against a man's legitimate activity would be 'illegal' because it inhibits him from freely seeking his interests. Though I should also say that if a man recognizes the position of God in his life he should also recognize that these “rights” are inalienable only so long as God allows them to be.
As I was saying, individuals have these rights - life, liberty and property, and these are 'individual' rights. But what if one man is not able to fully protect those rights? This is where real 'law' comes into play. Individuals gather under a common purpose of protection. They say, "We are not able to protect our rights as individuals because we lack the resources, etc." But if all of those individuals band together, they now have a pool of resources from which to draw. Therefore, the 'law' is an agreed-to set of protections where individuals can sufficiently safeguard their rights where they would otherwise not be able to had they acted alone.
The best way to address the issue of the state of our law is to look at it in the context as defined above. Is the purpose of the law - protecting the collective rights - being executed?
What is the state of my 'right to life'?
Simply, your right to life is only granted if you are already alive. The Declaration of Independence presupposed a right to life, but not a right to 'bring forth' life. (DISCLAIMER: this isn't an abortion argument, though I could make it. It is a legal argument.) The Constitution does not speak of a right to life, but only protects an individual from the government's attempt to rob him of his life without "due process of law." (See Fifth Amendment). The law currently has penalties in place that discourage one man from taking the life of another - the death penalty or life in prison. And equally as important, a man has a right to protect his life by any means necessary insofar as his life is in danger of being lost. This means that if a man is trying to shoot you, you can shoot him back. One could even shoot first if you believe another's threat to shoot you is a real one.
What is the state of my 'right to liberty'?
This one is not so good.
Some might argue that there is still liberty, but that is regulated or curtailed in certain areas. Such statements are foolish and show an ignorance of liberty itself. One cannot have only a little liberty or a lot of liberty. One either has liberty or he does not. Words have meanings. Liberty means something. To say that one has restricted liberty is akin to a true lie. The truth is the truth, and a lie is a lie. The two are incompatible. Liberty and regulation are incompatible. As it stands, Americans do not live in an environment of liberty. They live in a state of modest regulation. I call it "modest" because it has the appearance of reasonableness and most Americans do not recognize this usurpation of their rights as the death of their liberty.
Having said all of this, I also say that this nation was not, and never has been, libertarian. So do not take the above discussion as an argument favoring libertarian ideals. It is not. It is merely a clarification of terms.
2 comments:
Interesting thoughts. In utmost simplicity, the government would look pretty lean compared to what we see now. I get the idea that the government is probably more concerned about its own continuation in power than it is about protecting the rights of its citizens. I have to wonder what the "founding fathers" would think of the current state of things.
Publius,
I have to agree with your propostition and analysis, except maybe for the "modest" part. It certainly appears that since FDR gave us the New Deal, that we have been increasing the pace of control, not by legislation, but by the regulation that you talk about. These regulations are often now created by the same people who enforce them. These bureaucrats are elected by no one and answer to no one. Their power supercedes both the place of the Legislature and the Court in our representative republic, and is fast becoming a runaway train.
Post a Comment